When I signed up I was told I have 3 posts a day, so I will have to address atlanta1, abnisk and nukejohn in the same post.
Atlanta1:
I am new to the site, but not new to CIGX. I have been following the story for a few years. I only recently found this site, but I don't think that should be held against me.
nukejohn:
I am not going to address what I find the ridiculousness of your post in terms of you knowing 100 people taking Anatabloc, it curing your eyesight, or helping people with cancer. I figure people will see right through that. The only thing I find interesting in your post is that based on the words used and the writing style, I am now 90% sure you are Patrick Cox.
abnisk:
1. There is a huge difference between technical and fundamental analysis. A technical analyst just looks at the chart and nothing more. He knows nothing of the underlying fundamentals of a company. It is the fundamentals which are being debated by the bears and the bulls, not what the chart looks like.
2. When I said celebrity endorsements mean nothing I was referring to how a celebrity can be tricked into thinking something is working when there is no real science behind the product. That is why I chose the example of the Power Balance Bracelet. I am not talking about Larry Bird and Michael Jordan shooting hoops in a gym in a McDonalds commercial or Cindy Crawford in a Pepsi commercial. (Decided to go old school hope it is okay). Maybe you would have preferred the example of Skechers losing a lawsuit regarding Shape-Ups because the product did not work. Though I believe in that lawsuit Joe Montana was not named as a defendant and Skechers had to pay all the money. I always liked Fred Couples and I am glad that he is being paid to endorse the product.
3. I am going to talk about the patent validity in a way you might understand. Let's say you have a patent on a square tire and you sue Goodyear. Goodyear comes to court asks for your square tire patent to be re-examined. While that is going on, a jury finds that even if the square tire patent is upheld, Goodyear did not infringe because Goodyear sells a round tire. That is what you have here. Reynolds asked for the patents to be re-examined. They were and they were upheld. That is great. The only problem is that it has also been ruled that Reynolds did not infringe on the patents if valid. What good is a valid patent if someone does not infringe on it? The Supreme Court holding up the patents means nothing because it was ruled that Reynolds did not infringe if they were valid.
4. I remember a few years back when everyone was so convinced that Reynolds would lose to Star and when Star lost the stock dropped below $2. It had been above $5 recently before then and then dropped like a stone. The bulls seem to have placed a lot of faith that this mediation will result in hundreds of millions of dollars. If it does not, under $2 might be just around the corner.
5. It is nice that Johns Hopkins is looking into the product, but that means very little. Numerous small drug companies (note Anatabloc is an OTC dietary supplement not an FDA approved drug, but I need to use drug companies as an example) have a drug that gets through phase 1 and phase 2, but their stock gets wiped out when the drug gets to phase 3 testing and fails. Large companies have drug trials that fail as well. It is not that these companies are running a scam, it is just that what they thought would materialize does not. The reason I think that Anatabloc is more scam than science is because of the history of the company behind it. You will forgive me for not being swayed by numerous anonymous testimonials that could be posted by anyone or even the same person under various user names. I hate to use drug companies as an analogy because people may begin to think Anatabloc is a drug rather than an OTC dietary supplement. The reason that Anatabloc is an OTC dietary supplement and getting FDA approval is not being discussed is because I believe Star knows it would never hold up under the scrutiny of FDA required testing.
